Go to page

Point taken. In regarding each individual's interpretation and belief in Islam, if an individual who chooses to live by Muhammad the Prophet's direct example of marrying a minor, they can argue then that they have the justification to do so by following Muhammad the Prophet. However, if following a more secular example, more Muslims would choose to condemn the practice depending on their individual beliefs that marrying a minor is "haram". It supposedly could go both ways... although it is unfortunate that such a practice can still be defended within the religion.

This is the problem, isn't it? People's actions--even those of prophets--should be viewed within the context of their times. They shouldn't automatically be viewed as being unequivocally moral in today's day and age.

This is the problem, isn't it? People's actions--even those of prophets--should be viewed within the context of their times. They shouldn't automatically be viewed as being unequivocally moral in today's day and age.

This is the problem, isn't it? People's actions--even those of prophets--should be viewed within the context of their times. They shouldn't automatically be viewed as being unequivocally moral in today's day and age.

And that's the problem when one takes religion and religious texts too literally. It would be like me worshiping George Washington and enslaving people because that's what Washington did and it wasn't considered wrong during his own lifetime!

And that's the problem when one takes religion and religious texts too literally. It would be like me worshiping George Washington and enslaving people because that's what Washington did and it wasn't considered wrong during his own lifetime!

For a non-religious person such as myself, though, I have a lot of veneration for the Founding Fathers to the extent of almost viewing them as Prophets--albeit as Prophets who were men of their time rather than some sort of divine beings.

This is the problem with assuming that non-religious people must automatically reject any worship of any individuals.

And that's the problem when one takes religion and religious texts too literally. It would be like me worshiping George Washington and enslaving people because that's what Washington did and it wasn't considered wrong during his own lifetime!

Many people take religious texts too literally. That is OK as long as their religion doesn't impede on their temporal affairs and its teachings are spiritual. That is not the case with Islam. As a result Islam comes with its own culture. This is true with Hinduism and Judaism too, but Islam's founder led a violent life as a warlord in addition to his spiritual teachings, so following his example brings problems into one's life and the society. This is the predicament facing Muslims and the Islamic world compared to the others. There is no easy fix.

Many people take religious texts too literally. That is OK as long as their religion doesn't impede on their temporal affairs and its teachings are spiritual. That is not the case with Islam. As a result Islam comes with its own culture. This is true with Hinduism and Judaism too, but Islam's founder led a violent life as a warlord in addition to his spiritual teachings, so following his example brings problems into one's life and the society. This is the predicament facing Muslims and the Islamic world compared to the others. There is no easy fix.

Yeah, I agree with this. Conquering a whole bunch of people and shaming their idols is different from preaching love and tolerance and all that. Saying that Islam is a religion of peace is inaccurate since Islam was founded based on conquest.

The definition of "pedophilia" is an unnatural sexual attraction towards children, and the definition of "child" in this context is one who has not reached sexual maturity. In females, sexual maturity is reached with the onset of menstruation, which indicates that she is capable of sexual reproduction. According to the Islamic sources, Aisha had her first menstruation at the age of 9 or 10, at which point she was no longer a child and thus was objectively fit for consummation. These are the parameters laid down by God (or by Nature, if you prefer), not by myself or any other human being. In most modern states, it is considered illegal to have intercourse with a person under some specified age (usually 16 or 18), but these laws are arbitrary and have nothing to do with some objective or natural morality. Throughout history, it was common for a female to already have children by her early teenage years, because that is what God/Nature intended.

It is also worth noting that no Westerner condemned Muhammad as a "pedophile" before the 20th century (if I am mistaken, please cite some examples of such condemnations). This is a purely modern condemnation that is based on the subjective moral values of modern Western civilization. This condemnation is not grounded in any objective or natural morality. Furthermore, from a historical standpoint the marriage that was considered most unusual was not Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, but rather Muhammad's marriage to his first wife Khadija, who was said to be 15 years older than him (when she married Muhammad, she was 40 and he was 25). From an objective biological standpoint, we can certainly say that the marriage between Muhammad and Khadija was much less desirable than the marriage between Muhammad and Aisha, since women have a specific age window in which they are fertile (from puberty to menopause), while men can theoretically sire children even in old age. Thus, while it makes perfect biological sense for an older man to marry a much younger woman, it makes much less biological sense for a young man to marry a significantly older woman.

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.